AUGUSTA, Maine — Personal information from concealed weapons permits will be kept from the public until the end of April after passage of an emergency bill that was rushed through the Legislature and signed by Gov. Paul LePage on Tuesday.

The bill exempts information about concealed weapons permit holders from Maine’s Freedom of Access Act while lawmakers debate another bill that would make that information private permanently.

“I applaud the Legislature for expediting this matter,” LePage said Tuesday afternoon in a press release. “Now the debate can continue in the Legislature based on the merits of the bill while ensuring safety for all Mainers.”

5. Fine, only it shouldn't be just for concealed carriers. Fishing licenses, hunting, and several

others also don't need to be included in general public access. Why does the general public need to know the names of people who have a hunting license or a fishing license? That is just not necessary. YES, we need sensible gun control laws, but general public access to knowing exactly who holds these kinds of licensures is not necessary. Media outlets can get statistical information from the state agencies, and information about violators of the licensing rules can be made public IF someone is actually charged with a violation. Otherwise, this doesn't need to be general public access information.

4. This is a temporary stop-gap while they hold hearings etc. and determine what if any permanent

adjustments need to be made in the general access-to-information laws. It was heavily bi-partisan to do this for now in the aftermath of a newspaper wanting this information and the fear it would be published. They will also consider whether to keep fishing licenses, regular hunting licenses and other sorts of licenses general public access or not. There should not be special rights for concealed weapons carriers, but is it really necessary to have all these licensures open to GENERAL public information access? How is that "common sense"? How about welfare recipients? Should their status be open to general public knowledge printable in a newspaper or exposed in other media? That is taxpayer dollars. Should we have the right to know? Hmmm?There is a point here. (No, that information should be private.) Of course all government agencies such as law enforcement would have access to all that information, but does the general public need to know just who has a fishing license, just who has a hunting license, etc.?? If a citizen feels there is a violation of a license occurring, then report it to the authorities and let them investigate. But we don't need a bunch of private citizen investigations of people going on. Progressives ARE supposed to be about privacy rights, aren't we? There is much more than one side to this.

8. Yup, we don't need a bunch of private investigations going on, or people accessing this information

in order to market products, etc. They need to re-examine some of these public-access-to-information provisions and reform some of them. It seems a good number of them are unnecessary and infringe on privacy rights.

19. Mainers are practical and thoughtful folks, so here is what I think will happen:

I think this issue will become much more comprehensive in scope and that a very thorough official and public debate will occur.
Already there was an amendment to this temporary measure offered to extend it to other forms of licensure so that it would not be about "special rights" just for concealed weapons holders. While that failed because they wanted to get this temporary measure done quickly, you are going to see that point be made again and again BIGTIME as this continues to air out in the public domain. The progressive organization Maine Majority, as you know, already put out an online petition saying "No to special rights just for concealed weapons carriers." It just didn't have time to gain a ton of traction since this all happened so fast.

Make no mistake. This is going to be a very comprehensive debate and the mantra of "special rights" is going to take hold in a big way from the more progressive side just as the conservatives used "special rights" so much in the past to argue against gay rights bills. Only in this case, it really is a matter of a special exemption for one vocal group. Progressive groups know that the NRA/SAM types are going to frame this as a way to try to chip away at common sense gun control measures and are going to link it to that issue, when it is objectively really an issue about broader privacy rights. And that is going to inflame many who support common sense gun control, even in a hunting state like Maine, and it is also going to anger a lot of middle of the road folks who want it to be about privacy rights and not just gun rights.

So there is going to be demanded a comprehensive re-examination of the whole Freedom of Access law. They are going to have to proceed carefully, fairly, and comprehensively as more people and more groups and viewpoints become involved in this. You might even see a court challenge to this temporary measure on the grounds that it is a special right extended to one class but not others. This whole thing is going to have a major league public airing in the media, on the blogs, and in Augusta. So far there has only been a flash-in-the-pan reaction mainly with gun advocates being very vocal, but I think even now it has a great deal of general public support because most Mainers see it as larger privacy rights issue, not just a gun rights issue. This is going to continue to broaden bigtime.

I think what will happen in the end is some kind of permanent modification to the current Freedom of Access law including more restrictions on concealed carry information access AS WELL AS greater restrictions on information about other licensure too such as hunting, fishing, and business licenses. I really think people are going to demand it because the "special rights" argument will take hold and will be powerful, and Mainers will view this as a larger privacy rights matter and not just a gun rights matter. I think we will at least likely see permanent reforms requiring compelling need-to-know provisions and possibly judicial review before information is disclosed, if not an outright ban on disclosure, and it will most likely include more than just concealed weapons permits. It is a healthy debate, one that is overdue, and an area of law that most will agree does need reform. Mainers want fairness and will want it to be more comprehensive and not just about "special rights" for concealed weapons holders. So you are going to see a big debate and a lot of compromise, as it should be. And that is generally the Maine way. We usually get things pretty correct up here.

13. Well now that it is passed

you can bet they'll never reverse it in any way shape or form. Bipartisan or not, it was rammed through in just a few days. The paper filled a freedom of information act request on Wednesday and the legislature passed it on Friday with the governor signing it the same day. No hearings, no testimony. A nice bit of democracy.

21. So they passed it and then it expires in April?

I did read it, but skimmed it pretty fast and missed that part.

The question becomes though will any progress be made or will it come down to a choice of either going back to the old way or keeping the ban? I'd hope they find a middle ground. Do the Republicans control both chambers?

18. There was a big hoopla, so to cool the waters and allow for that real debate they did this.

Don't go getting all in a big sweat. There WILL be a comprehensive and thoughtful debate going forward on the whole issue. This was a temporary bill in order to be able to do just that, and it in fact prevented a larger permanent bill from being rushed in. Most Mainers agree with it, and it will allow us to re-examine the whole Freedom of Access law as it pertains to all such licensures. It has raised a good issue. Why should hunting licenses, fishing licenses, business licenses, etc. be open to individual scrutiny without a compelling need to know? All states should look at these laws and apply higher levels of confidentiality. We don't need this information begin given out haphazardly to private companies, people doing odd private little investigations, media outlets, etc. without compelling reasons and judicial review, if at all.